General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf my religious beliefs dictate that cockroaches are sacred in my restaurant kitchen
will my religious liberty be protected?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
quinnox
(20,600 posts)You cockroach worshipper! 
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
riqster
(13,986 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Not making that up. In fact, devout Jain observers will not even consume tomatoes or tomato sauces as they merely RESEMBLE blood and meat products.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Just post that on a sign taped to the front door.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)I'll just exercise my religious freedom and bar health inspectors from the kitchen.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Enjoy your empty restaurant.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)they will probably shut your place down.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Why do you insist on trampling my religious beliefs?
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)You can eat all the roach covered food you want in your closed restaurant.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)claiming that paying for Workman's Com is against their religion:
“I have lost 10 or 12 jobs to the Amish this year. It used to be a small problem, but now they are everywhere,” said Grinols.
In order for a contractor to work on a state job there are strict requirements that need to be followed. A contractor must have Worker’s Compensation, liability insurance, unemployment insurance and they have to pay prevailing wage and in some cases be bonded, according to Grinols. These costs can usually tally a third of overall payroll. They also have to meet OSHA safety standards and need a permit to work in cities. Grinols said the Amish do not follow these guidelines and can afford to take jobs at the half the price as other contractors with insurance.
Grinols said in some cases the Amish are put on homeowner’s insurance to do residential work, but in most cases they do not have insurance. He said it is a common practice to bring their children with them on jobs even though it is against the law.
“Normally, when we know they are bidding on a job we just walk away from it. It’s a waste of time to try to bid against them,” said Al Woodward, a contractor form Quality Builders G. C. in Canisteo. He says he commonly sees Amish workers from Troupsburg, Jasper and Greenwood taking jobs in the residential areas he works in.
Read more: http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20081013/News/310139908#ixzz2uN2NNKi0
In the specific instance of religious communities and workers comp, the record across the United States is fairly consistent, for the most part favoring religion. The Amish have a specific exemption from workers comp in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Kentucky and Ohio. There are pending requests for exemptions in Minnesota and Tennessee. Supreme Courts in a number of states have upheld the right of churches to govern their internal affairs. Federal legislation exempts the Amish from collecting Social Security taxes.
http://www.workerscompinsider.com/law/
There is also a claim of religious exemption from building codes:
Building codes are established by the state and enforced by towns, villages and cities. Morristown officials said they updated their 22-year-old building codes in 2006 based on a model law provided by the state. The code requires new and existing structures "to keep pace with advances in technology in fire protection and building construction."
The Amish are members of the Old Order Swartzentruber sect, among the most traditional of the Amish groups. They don't deny building houses without permits and have said they were willing to purchase building permits, but contend the requirements of the codes -- such as having smoke detectors, submitting engineering plans and allowing inspections -- violate their religious beliefs.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/amish_file_lawsuit_concerning.html
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)That needs to be resended.
Lost_Count
(555 posts)*rimshot*
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)to change your beliefs or to prevent you from attempting to win converts to your religion, just as I will support the rights of others to deny the validity of your views, to discourage folk from adopting your views, and to be free from state interference in their views about the matter
Lex
(34,108 posts)Your religious beliefs should definitely trump all other laws.
cheyanne
(733 posts)Since America is based on religious tolerance, we face many problems that a theocracy doesn't. Especially around actions: your beliefs are sacrosanct, but your actions are not. If your actions interfere with someone else's actions, then the law may intervene to check your actions.
spoiler: there is lots of gray area here.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I believe Lex was being sarcastic
Lex
(34,108 posts)Whoa. I'm kind of scared that I should've put the sarcasm smiley on that one.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)especially when one is relatively new.
cheyanne
(733 posts)I still haven't figured out what trolling is and some of the short cuts like lol (i know that one).
thanks.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)If the Extreme Court (Scalia) says that people can discriminate for any reason what-so-ever then that is what can be done and NO ONE can do a damn thing about it...Their word is FINAL...
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)
former9thward
(31,997 posts)not having cockroaches in a restaurant kitchen probably is so your religious freedom would not be protected.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Not making a First Amendment argument for cockroaches. Sorry for the confusion.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)There is no law in AZ and no federal law saying a business can't discriminate against gays. I wish it was a protected class but wishes don't mean anything. So a business can, not only in AZ but most states, discriminate in that manner. So there would be no basis for suit and no need for a law that provided a defense to a suit.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Because they would now need to meet these 3 criteria? From the bill:
"1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief. 2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held. 3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs."
former9thward
(31,997 posts)But what I am saying, religion aside, in AZ and most other states, gays can legally be denied service. For example, if someone told a restaurant "I would like to reserve a room for a party, I am celebrating my same-sex ceremony." The owner could say, "I'm sorry I don't serve people that I know are gay in this restaurant." I don't know of any law that would prevent that in most of the states. (Some states do have such laws but just a minority.)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I don't know what every state/municipality is like but where my brother works his restaurant must have a pest control regimen for bugs and rodents. Some vegans literally would not harm a fly.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)seen in my house must have a death wish because I immediately grab my can of Raid.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Thankfully, where I live I don't have roaches, fleas, etc. but there are wolf spiders as big as my knee. Go ahead, ask me how I know that.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Ummm, I mean, I heard it from a guy once somewhere...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)In fact, insects might become part of the solution to the severe protein issues we have.
riqster
(13,986 posts)
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)including gusanos de maguey. those with a nice hot sauce are good.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I think people forget that not very long ago, many states enacted these laws, which allow pharmacists who object to contraception to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control for women. It is discriminatory, and wrong, and yet courts have upheld these laws. Just to take a few examples:
Florida 2003 Stat. XXIX 381.0051 states that physicians or other people may not be held liable for refusing to dispense contraceptive or family planning devices, services or information.
Georgia Admin. Code § 480-5-.03 provides that a pharmacist shall not be required to fill a prescription for an emergency contraceptive drug; provides that such refusal shall not be the basis for any claim for damages; provides for the duration of the effectiveness of the written objection; provides for related matters; repeals conflicting laws.
Idaho Code § 18-611 provides that no health care professional shall be required to provide any health care service that violates his or her conscience.
Maine Rev. Stat. tit. 22, 1903 (1973) gives physicians and agents of medical and related facilities the right to refuse to provide family planning services when such actions would interfere with moral or religious beliefs.
Mississippi Code Ann. § 41-41-215 permits health care providers, including pharmacists or other pharmacy employees, counselors, social workers, health insures and health care facilities to refuse to provide [any] medical services, including counseling and referral, on religious or ethical grounds (SB 2619).
South Dakota Codified Laws § 36-11-70 allows pharmacists the right to refuse to provide services.
Tennessee Code Ann. 68-34-104 allows physicians or any agent of such an entity to refuse to offer contraceptive services, supplies, or information if it interferes with a moral or religious belief. States that physicians or other agents may not be held liable for this refusal.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/pharmacist-conscience-clauses-laws-and-information.aspx
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Clearly outright misogyny and discrimination however against women doesn''t generate nearly the same outrage as the AZ law - the two different reactions are telling.
For me, there's no place for either but its indisputable that the AZ law is strongly bolstered by the courts upholding the rights of pharmacists to withhold medicine because of their religious beliefs.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)As we've been arguing of late, discrimination against women appears to be invisible: seen as normal, accepted widely, even on the left, as you've noted.
As progressive women, we vigorously oppose the Arizona law and its ilk, and any other discrimination against the LGBT community. Our gay brothers in sisters, in turn, need to understand that unless they take a stand against these kinds of "moral conscience" clauses that affect women regarding birth control and/or abortion, that their own rights are in peril.
It's important to comprehend the larger picture: if so called moral exemptions are made that can block free access to birth control or insurance for women, and the courts let this stand, then the rights of gay people are imperiled as well. Because the legal precedent is already being set: if they can do it to women, they can start doing it to anyone. These laws are like the Stand Your Ground laws: all they require is for someone to claim they have a particular mindset, and they can discriminate against you, refuse to serve you, or ... shoot you.
We're all in this together, friends.
jsr
(7,712 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)I've heard of this heresy, but it needs to be stamped out, so to speak.
Archae
(46,327 posts)WISN-TV, channel 12 in Milwaukee has exposed how apartments owned by religious groups are avoiding property taxes, even though the properties are not being used for religious use.
http://www.wisn.com/news/wisn-12-news-investigates-loophole-for-religious-groups-costing-taxpayers/24647848
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)
but yes, your larger point is definitely valid!
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)I'm male but the requirements of my religion are very strict and do not make any allowance for gender differences.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Come, and be touched by His Noodly Appendage, or at least some nice linguini.
Uben
(7,719 posts).....did I get screwed or what?
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)If you are serving the public you are agreeing to laws made by that public for their safety. You agree to take their money and provide them something in a public space governed by yourself and a collection of others.
If you live on a farm and your restaurant is not open to the public but only to fellow commune members you are not engaging the broader group and the freedoms and self-determination of that group will define whether or not the action is acceptable.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)are directly referring to both cockroaches and 'possums, implying that these critters are sacred and will survive Armageddon.
Hard to argue with that one, isn't it?
Dirty Socialist
(3,252 posts)Jeebus purify the insect world!
Erose999
(5,624 posts)religious freedom.
Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)this is the example that proves the adage that the market will sort itself out.
Other examples aren't so cut and dried.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Mom and Pop, daughter and her husband, and daughter and her WIFE. Let's see what would they do with that? So we will serve you, you, you and you, but you two have to leave our establishment. WHAT do these jerks think would happen? The ENTIRE family, including the straight couples, would all walk out. You can probably include BUSINESS luncheons in this which could have gay staff members. They won't just be refusing gays, but losing straights business also.
BTW, to Barilla idiots. I make pasta dishes for my entire family. My gay daughter and her wife are part of my family dinners too. So, I don't use your product any more. I would not patronize any "religious" establishment that discriminates against gays, minorities, non-English speakers, etc.
nil desperandum
(654 posts)I've never been able to understand the continuing grip that religion has on our laws and the minds of what are supposed to be educated populaces...my apologies in advance for those offended, but the concept of people who preach the belief in magical, invisible sky men catching a break on property taxes or avoiding compliance with federal tax and labor law seems a bit flawed logically.
I understand your post to be somewhat tongue in cheek, I suspect however that it comes from a place of experiencing just how ridiculous some of these legal constructs are and how those constructs are still designed to allow some members of our society to be treated as less than equal citizens...
Equal under the law should be just that no less, no more.
Thanks for making me think a little today...
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Just look at the zeal with which these same people have attacked the non-existent problem of "Sharia Law" in Kansas and other deep red states. That's the reason they don't even consider the "slippery slope" of my cockroach worshippers and others that would claim religious exemptions for just about anything, as being a problem with their position- They never for a minute thought "religious liberty" would or should apply to anyone but themselves.